To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918

World War I stands as one of history's most senseless spasms of carnage, defying rational explanation. In a riveting, suspenseful narrative with haunting echoes for our own time, Adam Hochschild brings it to life as never before. He focuses on the long-ignored moral drama of the war's critics, alongside its generals and heroes. Thrown in jail for their opposition to the waWorld War I stands as one of history's most senseless spasms of carnage, defying rational explanation. In a riveting, suspenseful narrative with haunting echoes for our own time, Adam Hochschild brings it to life as never before. He focuses on the long-ignored moral drama of the war's critics, alongside its generals and heroes. Thrown in jail for their opposition to the war were Britain's leading investigative journalist, a future winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, and an editor who, behind bars, published a newspaper for his fellow inmates on toilet paper. These critics were sometimes intimately connected to their enemy hawks: one of Britain's most prominent women pacifist campaigners had a brother who was commander in chief on the Western Front. Two well-known sisters split so bitterly over the war that they ended up publishing newspapers that attacked each other. Today, hundreds of military cemeteries spread across the fields of northern France and Belgium contain the bodies of millions of men who died in the "war to end all wars." Can we ever avoid repeating history?...more

ebook, 480 pages

Published
May 3rd 2011
by Mariner Books
(first published May 1st 2011)

Community Reviews

"When this century collapses, dead at last,And its sleep within the dark tomb has begun, Come, look down upon us, world, file past And be ashamed of what our age has done.

Inscribe our stone, that everyone may see What this dead era valued most and best: Science, progress, work, technology And death - but death we prized above the rest."

These verses, written by early 20th-century Czech playwright and author Karel Capek, sounded a fitting leitmotif as I read Adam Hochschild's "To End All Wars: A"When this century collapses, dead at last,And its sleep within the dark tomb has begun, Come, look down upon us, world, file past And be ashamed of what our age has done.

Inscribe our stone, that everyone may see What this dead era valued most and best: Science, progress, work, technology And death - but death we prized above the rest."

These verses, written by early 20th-century Czech playwright and author Karel Capek, sounded a fitting leitmotif as I read Adam Hochschild's "To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918." The 20th century was one ravaged by two world wars, genocide, and countless `smaller' wars. But for sheer brutality, for the slaughter that turned hundreds of miles of trenches into a charnel house of unprecedented proportions it is hard to imagine a place or time when death was prized more than it was during the war to end all wars.

Histories of World War I abound, from Barbara Tuchman (The Guns of August) to Winston Churchill (The World Crisis, 1911-1918) to John Keegan (The First World War). There are no shortage of books about the bravery of the soldiers who rose from their trenches and marched into certain death. Similarly there are no shortage of books about the almost criminally incompetent British and French Generals whose strategic planning (if you could call it that) was horrifically simple: send hundreds of thousands of men forward against entrenched positions and hope the Germans ran out of machine gun bullets before the British and French forces ran out of men. Not so readily available are books that take a look at the relatively few people who stood up and spoke out against the indiscriminate slaughter. Hochschild balances the scales a bit by taking a look at the stories and motivations behind those few souls who opposed it.

The book is set up as a straightforward chronological narrative beginning with Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897 celebrating the 60 years of her monarchy, through the Boer War and the introduction of concentration camps and the use of machine guns as one of the original weapons of mass destruction, the lead up to war, and then a chronological narrative of the war itself. This is all well-plowed ground and if this were simply a narrative of the war it would be a well-written popular history that would serve as a good introduction to the period. However, Hochschild intersperses the traditional narrative with a parallel narrative that was not nearly so familiar to me. While focusing on Britain's role in the war, Hochschild tells us the stories of people like Keir Hardie, Sylvia Pankhurst, Charlotte Despard (the brother of General John French, who was to become Commander in Chief of the British Expeditionary Forces), Emily Hobhouse, Bertrand Russell and others. These were people from all walks of life who for various reasons, political, social, or religious, opposed the war. Hochschild also looks at some of those who stridently supported the war from the sidelines, including Rudyard Kipling and the author John Buchan (The Thirty-Nine Steps (Dover Thrift Editions)) who lashed out at those who did not adopt the motto For King and Country.

What Hochschild does very well in his book is to explore the family and social connections between the groups leading Britain into war and those few who opposed it. Causalities in World War I, as Hochschild points out hit the upper classes particularly hard. The officer class in the British military was almost exclusively drawn from the upper echelons of British society and their losses in the war were very high. One cliché about the American Civil War describes it as one in which brother fought against brother. Here we had upper class families rent asunder between those who fought (and often died) and those within their ranks who opposed it and sometimes went to prison for those beliefs.

The Russian poet Nadezhda Mandelstam once wrote of the great deeds that can be accomplished by people who with great courage stand up and speak out on behalf of their conscience: that "a person with inner freedom, memory, and fear is that reed, that twig that changes the direction of a rushing river." Hochschild does an excellent job writing about the twigs that desperately wanted to change the rushing river of blood that carried millions of people off to die. Their failure to achieve this goal, however, in no way diminishes their value and the value of this book....more

BrannonWhat an absolutely, incredible review! I first read this book when I decided to republish my great-grandfather's authentic WWI diary 2 years ago. I foWhat an absolutely, incredible review! I first read this book when I decided to republish my great-grandfather's authentic WWI diary 2 years ago. I found it quite helpful and very informative. I believe you have done it a great justice with your review!...more
Apr 04, 2013 09:50PM

I got a lot of pleasure and education from this book because of the author’s talent in weaving together stories of individual people and letting the bigger themes emerge from them. The focus is on individuals who resisted the war in Britain balanced by the personal tales of a select set of true believers. I was uplifted to experience how it was that some had the courage to work for peace and saddened by coming to terms with the futility of their efforts. On the other side of things, I came to puI got a lot of pleasure and education from this book because of the author’s talent in weaving together stories of individual people and letting the bigger themes emerge from them. The focus is on individuals who resisted the war in Britain balanced by the personal tales of a select set of true believers. I was uplifted to experience how it was that some had the courage to work for peace and saddened by coming to terms with the futility of their efforts. On the other side of things, I came to put a human face to those who were very much a part of political and societal engines of war. Along the way, I got plenty of perspective on the overall war, despite limited coverage of military campaigns and political events in other countries involved in the war. In his introduction, Hochschild outlines his approach:

In a sense …this is a story about loyalties. What should any human being be most loyal to? Country? Military duty? Or the ideal of international brotherhood? And what happens to loyalty within a family if, as happened to several of the families in these pages, some members join the fight while a brother, a sister, a son, takes a stance of opposition that the public sees as cowardly or criminal? …The men and women in the following pages are a cast of characters I have collected over the years, as I found people whose lives embodied very different answers to the choices faced by those who lived at a time when the world was aflame. Among them are generals, labor activists, feminists, agents provocateurs, a writer turned propagandist, a lion tamer turned revolutionary, a cabinet minister, a crusading working-class journalist, three soldiers brought before a firing squad at dawn …

Quite a few of the characters of this special history make their appearance in the book’s excellent beginning with the Boer War at the turn of the century. There we find Alfred Milner as the Royal Governor of South Africa, architect of this war of imperial expansion with diamond mines a plum, and future Cabinet Minister during World War 1. John French and Douglas Haig, future competing military leaders for Britain in the Great War, achieve glory here with a cavalry charge to relieve the beleaguered gold town of Kimberly. This success and their prior experience with the slaughter at the Battle of Omdurman in India contributed to their clinging to horse cavalry as a key strategy when barbed wire and machine guns made them ineffectual from the first battles of WW1. Media cheerleaders for the future Great War, Rudyard Kipling and John Buchnan, also enter Hochschild’s stage in the Boer War.

All these figures get humanized by the book’s end (except Haig, who is only de-demonized a bit). Milner becomes more human from his long-lasting love affair as a married man with Violet Cecil, the daughter of a Prime Minister, and by a humane aspect to his pragmatism when a Cabinet Minister which sought not to make martyrs our of draft dodgers, war resistors, and mutinous soldiers. Kipling changes as a figure of extreme imperialist fervor when his 17-year son with the Irish Guards at the early Battle of Loos ends up missing. He spends years searching out his fate, one shared by 500,000 other British MIAs. He never really cracked in seeing the war as a noble cause for civilization against the Huns, but he left the ambiguous lines in a post-war book “Epitaphs of the War”: If any question why we died,/Tell them, because our fathers lied. Buchnan, as the first true propaganda director, sincerely believed lying about the devastating outcomes of trench warfare served national survival. His sympathetic tales of heroic and tragic actions by soldiers at the front in his book on the Battle of Somme may was a shield hiding the reality of astronomical losses, but he let slip a film of the front there which could not hide all the truths of the conditions there. When it sank in what sacrifice was going on there, it only strengthened public resolve to fight the war to the end.

On the resister side of Dramatis Personae, Emily Hobhouse makes for a wonderful story starting with her role in exposing the cruel excesses of the Boer War. As a minister’s daughter, she was drawn to South Africa to serve in organizing relief efforts for the children and families of impacted civilians. We feel her outrage and call to action over the plight of the roughly 100,000 refugees who were evicted from their lands, their farms were burned in a scorched-earth policy to suppress the rebels, and then placed in massive concentration camps, where about 27,000 died. Her publicizing of these inhumane excesses helped spark her political activism at home, ironically bringing her into alignment with the sister of French, Catherine Despard, and the liberal politician (and future Prime Minister) Lloyd George. Hobhouse’s story gets richer as her own brother, Stephen, becomes one of the many draft dodgers and conscientious objectors who served prison time. At one point, she represents Britain’s resisters at a socialist peace discussion in Switzerland among representatives of opposing sides and subsequently slips into Berlin to lobby for a prisoner swap and to support a negotiated peace.

The other threads for the antiwar figures followed in the book come from the suffragette and socialist labor groups. The Pankhurst family, which embraced extreme civil disobedience over women’s suffrage, split over support of the British involvement in the Great War, with Sylvia following the path of women like Hobhouse and Despard, while mother Emmeline and sister Christabel becoming rabid supporters. The story of labor opposition to British entry into the war and resistance to its prosecution once it started is told largely through the life of Keir Hardie, a boy miner who became a leader with the Scottish Miners’ Federation, then the Independent Labour Party, and later a Minister of Parliament. His socialist dream of an international brotherhood of workers which would defy participation in imperialist wars was a dangerous idea. Sylvia’s illicit love relationship with the married Hardie gets some tender treatment as a human refuge for them in the maelstrom of public disapproval and government harassment that came to people who spoke out against the war once it got started. Despard’s story gets a lot of independent focus in the book. She got her start in charity and advocacy work for the impoverished families of London’s Battersea slum. How she remained in loving relationship to her brother over the years, despite opposing political views, is a wonder Hochschild dwells on.

The story of conscientious objectors gets covered by Hochschild through several threads. At one extreme, about 50 COs were forceably inducted into the armed forces and shipped to France, where they were threatened with execution like deserters if they refused to fight. Seventeen such men were sentenced to death, but their sentences were commuted. Here is the author’s a summary of the larger scope of the CO issue:Before the end of the war, more than 20,000 men of military age would refuse to enter the British military forces. Some accepted alternative labor as conscientious objectors, but—usually because they refused that option on principle or because they were denied CO status—more than 6,000 resisters spent time in prison. Today, it is easy enough to look back and see the maniford tragic consequences of the First World War, but when the guns were firing and the pressure from friends and family to support the war effort was overwhelming, it required rare courage to resist.

Their image as individuals driven by a moral imperative was undermined by media declarations that they represented pure cowardice, a movement funded by German money, or the outcome of an infectious idea which should be treated like an invasive fungus. Hochschild goes for a bit of levity in portraying how a lawyer named Bodkin prosecuting a CO case thundered “war will become impossible if all men were to have the view that war is wrong.” The punch-line is that the No-Conscription Federation used his own words in a poster as a bit of wisdom. When a member was arrested for it, their lawyer argued that Bodkin should be arrested as the author of the offending words, while offering his societies benefits during any trial he might incur.

Bertrand Russell, the eminent Cambridge scholar, got a special emotional spur to antiwar action through being awakened in the middle of night by the sound of cheering. When it turned out to reflect glee from neighborhood residents over the burning up of zeppelin airmen after an explosion, he knew the war was perverting human nature on both sides. The German bombing of civilians from airships and planes was a horror that killed over 1,400 and wounded about 3,400 in English cities, but cheering the burning death of soldiers was beyond the pale for him . His letters, articles, and books in support of ending the war was a voice of clarity for the movement. He attended the court martials of COs and visited them in prison, and donated much manpower to the No-Conscription Fellowship, which was started by the Quakers.

The government’s experience with civil disorder wreaked by the suffragettes, labor strikes, and advocates for Irish independence already strengthened the hand of the growing domestic security apparatus within Scotland Yard. With the onset of war, the domestic spying operations of the Ministry of Munitions also expanded greatly. When so few German spy operations to be dug up, the pressure of self-justification of their jobs appears to have contributed to much agent provocateur actions. Such appears to be the case for the conspiracy conviction against Alice Wheeldon for plotting to kill Lloyd George by means of a poisonous blowgun, which seems more bizarre than fiction. She is sentenced to 10 years and her daughter and son-in-law to lesser sentences. Alice goes on hunger strikes, which is met with force feeding. Her story is a focus in Pat Barker’s excellent novel “The Eye in the Door,” the title of which refers to the doors in Wheeldon’s prison having a peepholes centered on painted eyes to torment them over the constant monitoring.

Another area of potentially excessive zeal is the execution of soldiers who mutiny and dereliction of duty. Hochschild presents the statistic that the Allied Forces had about 100 such cases compared to 40 or 50 for Germany. Then he takes the time to tell the story of three soldiers executed after a court martial for refusing their duties. A man in the brig for another infraction was tasked with burial duty and was so moved by his experience, he wrote a book in outrage.

The case of Lieutenant Sigmund Sassoon was a different kettle of fish which was handled more cautiously. As an active, decorated officer (and poet) on leave, he publicized his intention to stop fighting because the war had become one of British aggression. Russell helped him draft his statement and Sylvia Pankhurst published it in her newsletter, with the expectation that a public court marshall could trigger enough depart to spark a movement of soldiers to follow the Boshevik’s lead of laying down their weapons. Instead, after a period of medical review (featured in Barker's novel "Regneration"), a public statement proclaimed, “Sassoon has been reported by the medical board as not being responsible for his action, as he was suffering from a nervous breakdown.” Eventually, Sassoon chose to return to fighting at the front, noting in his diary that “I am only here to look after some men.” Hochschild summarizes: It was a haunting reminder of the fierce power of group loyalty over that of political conviction—and all the more so because it came from someone who had not in the slightest changed, nor ever in his life would change, his belief that his country’s supposed war aims were fraudulent.

One could claim that French in his position as military chief in Ireland did create martyrs by executing 15 of the leaders of the Easter Rising in 1916. The insurgents of the Irish Republican Brotherhood took over by force several government buildings in Dublin and declared an independent Ireland, leading to a massive military response from French, replete with naval artillery strikes. A collusion with Germany to acquire substantial arms was attempted but did not pay off, one step that added to the gravity of the judgment of the crimes.

Despite these examples, Hochschild gives credence to historians’ perspectives that the British government brakes on dissension and dissent was overall marked by restraint:With some exceptions, … the authorities did not jail people speaking out against the war or ban meetings. Seldom, points out the historian Brock Millman, “did the government prohibit, where it could discourage, or discourage where it was safe or politic to ignore.”

In many ways, the government’s fears of a socialist spurred civilian rebellion and military mutiny were legitimate concerns. The drop-out from the war by Russia was proof that such a movement could happen, and the implosion of Germany’s will to fight at the end of the war did lead to their downfall right when they were making large territorial advances in France. Yet attempts by the radicals to organize antiwar “soviets” in England failed, as their meetings were broken up by patriotic crowds. Hochschild concludes:

Critics could point out, of course, that Despard and Russell were quite far from being either workers or soldiers. But the real cause of their failure was that Britain was a democracy; however imperfect a one. Unlike Russia, there was little pent-up hunger for revolution, and the government waging the war had been elected. The radical Leeds conference made the headlines, but a more accurate gauge of British working class feeling was to be found at a meeting in Manchester this same year where delegates representing nearly two million union members voted by a margin of more than five to one that Britain should carry on the war until Germany was fully defeated.

In sum, I felt this book was a highly readable account of a largely ineffectual but courageous fight of a small minority of Britons against the war. The stories of an intersecting set of true-believers in the war effort provide a window on what a strong edifice they were up against. There is plenty enough background on major events of the war to provide one a reasonable overview along with these sets of voices. That the author is a professor of journalism who teaches narrative writing can help account for the compelling quality in his writing, which is otherwise backed with a ton of scholarly references more typical of card-carrying historians. The book also has a great set of photographs, such as this one of Alice Wheeldon in prison (with her two daughters and a matron).

A book that brilliantly succeeds in finding a new way to talk about the First World War, by looking at the protesters and conscientious objectors who opposed it along the way. I must admit, in my head antiwar protests started sometime around the 60s with Vietnam; but it turns out that the British peace movement during 1914–18 is one of the most impressive in history.

So riveting are many of the details here that you end up feeling amazed and annoyed that they aren't included in more general histoA book that brilliantly succeeds in finding a new way to talk about the First World War, by looking at the protesters and conscientious objectors who opposed it along the way. I must admit, in my head antiwar protests started sometime around the 60s with Vietnam; but it turns out that the British peace movement during 1914–18 is one of the most impressive in history.

So riveting are many of the details here that you end up feeling amazed and annoyed that they aren't included in more general histories of the conflict. I've read countless thousands of words on John French over the last year, yet I somehow had no idea that the field marshal's own sister was Charlotte Despard, one of the most intransigent, outspoken activists of the period. Despard denounced ‘the wicked war of this Capitalistic government’ while her brother was busy orchestrating it – and yet the two of them were as close as ever, regularly visiting each other and writing off their siblings' political views as charming quirks.

Despard also championed many other progressive causes of the time, notably women's suffrage. The so-called suffragettes are a key part of the story, and a good illustration of how divided liberal activists were when the war broke out. Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughter Christabel went from planting bombs in Lloyd George's house to working hand-in-hand with him from speaking-platforms and in editorials: ‘If you go to this war and give your life,’ Emmeline told a cheering crowd in Plymouth, ‘you could not end your life in a better way – for to give one's life for one's country, for a great cause, is a splendid thing.’ An argument that became impossible after Owen.

Perhaps it helped cement the votes-for-women movement as being within the establishment – sure enough, women were enfranchised in 1918 before the war ended. Nevertheless as a modern reader all your sympathies are with the younger Pankhurst daughter, Sylvia, who remained absolutely committed to the antiwar movement and was more or less thrown out of her own family as a result. Sylvia's secret lover – the pacifist independent MP Keir Hardie – is another key character in here, and one I'd previously known nothing about. Both of them were shunned, isolated, mocked.

Hardie's friend Bob Smillie, leader of the Scottish mineworkers, said his reply would be: ‘I tried to stop the bloody thing, my child.’

Bertrand Russell also flits in and out of these pages, a towering moral presence. Every time I read about him I admire him more and more. Russell was jailed for six months for his antiwar activism (when the warder took down his details on arrival, he asked Russell's religion, and he replied, ‘agnostic’. Asking how to spell it, the warder sighed, ‘Well, there are many religions, but I suppose they all worship the same God’). He still managed to keep in touch with two of his lovers while in prison, too – he wrote to a French actress in French, a language his jailers couldn't understand, and sent letters to another woman smuggled out in copies of the Proceedings of the London Mathematics Society, which he told her was ‘more interesting than it appeared’.

Hochschild does a brilliant job not just in uncovering the activities of these characters, some of whom have been comprehensively neglected, but also in tying their stories together: the narrative often reads like a novel with a large but interconnected cast. The whole thing is animated by a steady but unintrusive sense of injustice, and the writing is clear, notwithstanding a few foibles (he deploys, for instance, that odd American hypercorrection ‘felt badly’).

What's particularly sad, after following these people for so long, and hoping for some kind of victory on their behalf, is seeing how desperately almost all of them latched on to the Russian Revolution in 1917. It's a harsh but enlightening test of moral character to see how quickly people could bring themselves to bail on the Soviet dream when things started going wrong – not a test many leftists passed with flying colours (but that's a story better told elsewhere). And overall, this is a story of failure and disappointment, though the tone is moving and hopeful rather than depressing. The title points up the overarching irony. President Wilson had called the slaughter the ‘war to end all wars’ – but Sir Alfred Milner was more prescient in 1918 when, peering into the future as the bodies were cleared away, he described the Treaty of Versailles as ‘a Peace to end Peace’....more

WarwickThanks Karen. Milner, a committed hawk, hardly comes across especially well here, but he was certainly on the money with that remark.
Feb 02, 2015 01:19PM

Linda LeeYour review encourages me to read this book because my own activism against war and for equality/social justice too often disappears into the fog of nYour review encourages me to read this book because my own activism against war and for equality/social justice too often disappears into the fog of nothingness that is the fourth estate.Glad to see filled in those blank spaces in history books....more
Mar 01, 2015 10:57PM

I think for many Americans this book will be something of a shocker. It tells the story of the British anti-war movement during World War I. First is the story of the enormous incompetence of those prosecuting the war; the highest ranking authority on the civil side was Prime Minister Asquith, and on the military side, the Generals French and Haig. This is a tale of enormous inhumanity, not just for the enemy, but for one's own troops as well, who were ordered to make suicide attacks by the tensI think for many Americans this book will be something of a shocker. It tells the story of the British anti-war movement during World War I. First is the story of the enormous incompetence of those prosecuting the war; the highest ranking authority on the civil side was Prime Minister Asquith, and on the military side, the Generals French and Haig. This is a tale of enormous inhumanity, not just for the enemy, but for one's own troops as well, who were ordered to make suicide attacks by the tens of thousands. (Sadly things were even worse on the German side. See my review of Ernst Jünger's Storm of Steel.) Hochschild tells his tale economically thereby establishing the broader context for the other aspects of his story.

At the heart of the book, what makes it unique, are stories of the trials and tribulations of the British anti-war movement. Peopled in large part by well-meaning persons of a socialist bent, the movement was undermined and smeared by the British government who had all aspects of the national press completely under its thumb. Part of the anti-war story is about the Conscientious Objector (CO) community. I'm so glad Mr. Hochschild is getting this story out with this book, for their treatment by members of the British police authorities, who shamelessly violated their civil rights, was horrendous. Early on the COs were sent to the front anyway, where the plan was to shoot them when they refused to obey orders. Fortunately, political advocates at home prevented this from happening. They were then moved to a filthy prison in Boulogne where the rats ran over them at night, and the food was disgusting. But even this, I suppose, was better than sitting at the front listening to the big guns thunder and wondering if you'd live to see your loved ones.

Another thing Hochschild does well here is to tell the tale of the Russian Revolution and the subsequent collapse of the Czarist state in 1917 in context with how the Brits were trying to win the war. This is fascinating....more

This is a compelling book that focuses on Britain during the Great War. Hochschild makes the conflict come alive, absolutely, and he is a writer of prodigious talent and skill. However, for some reason I can't quite explain, I never found his descriptions of the life and work of British peace activists -- really, the book's main thrust -- quite as compelling. I'm a huge admirer of those who have the fortitude and capacity for original thought necessary to hold their own when faced with a tidal wThis is a compelling book that focuses on Britain during the Great War. Hochschild makes the conflict come alive, absolutely, and he is a writer of prodigious talent and skill. However, for some reason I can't quite explain, I never found his descriptions of the life and work of British peace activists -- really, the book's main thrust -- quite as compelling. I'm a huge admirer of those who have the fortitude and capacity for original thought necessary to hold their own when faced with a tidal wave of opposition, as is the case with those Hochschild features here, but much as I admired their courage, I eventually found myself skipping through those parts of the book that featured them. If there was ever a war that begged the voice of peace activists, the Great War was it so I couldn't quite figure out why I never found their stories compelling enough to follow, especially throughout the book's second half.

Here is a possible scenerio: Hochschild is pretty far left on the political spectrum (this comes out very clearly in several instances) and his admiration for early 20th century British liberals, stemming from his own 21st century political persuasion (ideologies separated by a century that are worlds apart in terms of repercussions for their adherents), perhaps led him to write a book about them, framing their work with the backdrop of the war. Fair enough but it's possible that he admired them so much that he thought just telling their story would be enough. Not true: in my opinion his backdrop jumps off the page but the activists never do.

Because Hochschild makes the destructive war come to life, I would have enjoyed (hardly the right word for such a depressing topic) the book more had he included more material on other combatant countries besides Britain and Russia; he includes some material on the latter only because many of the British peace activists had great hopes for the outcome of the Russian Revolution.

But by and large it's a very good read and quite thorough if you're looking to understand British issues during the Great War.

Today marks 100 YEARS TO THE DAY that the First World War began with the invasion of Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

"To End All Wars" is the story, told from a variety of viewpoints, of how Britain fared under the stresses of war between 1914 and 1918. The author "focuses on the long-ignored moral drama of [the war's] critics, alongside its generals and heroes." Among the persons with whom the reader becomes familiar are: Sir John French, a hero of the Boer War and the first commander ofToday marks 100 YEARS TO THE DAY that the First World War began with the invasion of Serbia by the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

"To End All Wars" is the story, told from a variety of viewpoints, of how Britain fared under the stresses of war between 1914 and 1918. The author "focuses on the long-ignored moral drama of [the war's] critics, alongside its generals and heroes." Among the persons with whom the reader becomes familiar are: Sir John French, a hero of the Boer War and the first commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF); Charlotte Despard, Sir John's beloved older sister with whom he shared a close bond, though she was a prominent critic of the war and a staunch Socialist; Bertrand Russell, a distinguished academic, mathematician, writer and philosopher, who went to jail for his opposition to the war; Sir Douglas Haig, Sir John's replacement as commander of the BEF; Alfred, Lord Milner, a fervent supporter of the British Empire blessed with remarkable administrative talents, who came to occupy high office under a wartime government, helping to develop and shape policy; Keir Hardie, Member of Parliament and one of the founders of the Labour Party who was a staunch antiwar activist; and the Pankhurst family made up of mother Emmeline and her daughters Christabel and Sylvia who had been actively involved in the prewar movement for women's suffrage, but with the coming of war, the family became sharply divided, Emmeline and Christabel fully supporting the war effort, while the youngest daughter Sylvia allied herself with the antiwar movement.

The greatest value of this book lies in its attempt to give the reader a comprehensive account of how the First World War impacted upon British society. For that reason, I highly recommend it for any reader interested in the war and in social history. ...more

Coming off the current frenzy of the popular TV series Downton Abbey, this book tied right in with its intellectual and entertaining explanation of how British officers approached WWI as if it were a fox hunt, and the calvary--immaculate in its red coats and precision--was the perceived answer to victory. Since the war did not end quickly or smoothly, we follow the transformation from a gentleman's war to an industrial one. We also learn of the many dissenters and their fate. I'm not into war boComing off the current frenzy of the popular TV series Downton Abbey, this book tied right in with its intellectual and entertaining explanation of how British officers approached WWI as if it were a fox hunt, and the calvary--immaculate in its red coats and precision--was the perceived answer to victory. Since the war did not end quickly or smoothly, we follow the transformation from a gentleman's war to an industrial one. We also learn of the many dissenters and their fate. I'm not into war books, but this one was a fabulous read. I remembered much that I had forgotten in school, learned things I never learned, and enjoyed all the triva such as: the first tanks were bungling machines that did not live up to their task, but they became immensely popular when parked in town squares as a station for selling war bonds. The author also puts WWI into perspective as a trigger for the world's forthcoming bad behavior. One would think the unfathomable number of deaths would open our eyes....more

BeckyYippee! It's in Kindle at the Library! Another on the TBR list. Have you read The Guns of August? I love Barbara W. Tuchman. The book didn't quite worYippee! It's in Kindle at the Library! Another on the TBR list. Have you read The Guns of August? I love Barbara W. Tuchman. The book didn't quite work for me, and I think that was more that the audiobook's narrator didn't match the content.

But, you might find it very interesting after reading this one. It's definitely a classic....more
Mar 28, 2012 04:46PM

Having read numerous books on the Great War I wondered if Adam Hochschild’s new book; “To End All Wars” could bring anything new to the field. I am happy to say that it does. I found this book to be an enjoyable and fascinating account of the Great War and those within British society who opposed England’s participation.

Overall it provides the reader with a compelling account of those soldiers who went off to war and fought and those who objected and refused to serve and their supporters. It coHaving read numerous books on the Great War I wondered if Adam Hochschild’s new book; “To End All Wars” could bring anything new to the field. I am happy to say that it does. I found this book to be an enjoyable and fascinating account of the Great War and those within British society who opposed England’s participation.

Overall it provides the reader with a compelling account of those soldiers who went off to war and fought and those who objected and refused to serve and their supporters. It covers a range of topics and fields, suffragettes and women’s rights, conscientious objectors, propaganda, the Irish question but always there is the fighting along the Western Front and the horrors of trench warfare.

This is a great book and well worth the time to read, you will learn something new about the First World War....more

Hochschild has many admirable qualities as a writer. For one he seems generally obsessed with the worst that humanity can do. The Slave trade, the horrors and depredations of the Congo Free State have all been addressed, and in this current book the inferno of the Great War. But rather than wallowing in cheap nihilism and shock he is equally if not even more so, intrigued by those who against the currents of their day recognized an evil, and raised a voice, even if it was a feeble voice. Here thHochschild has many admirable qualities as a writer. For one he seems generally obsessed with the worst that humanity can do. The Slave trade, the horrors and depredations of the Congo Free State have all been addressed, and in this current book the inferno of the Great War. But rather than wallowing in cheap nihilism and shock he is equally if not even more so, intrigued by those who against the currents of their day recognized an evil, and raised a voice, even if it was a feeble voice. Here that voice accomplished little but is as they say, now seen by many as being on the right side of history. Like his other subjects, the Great War is one of those moments in history so devoid of point and pity as to cause serious conjecture on the nature of humanity. But the nature of humanity in all its incongruities and paradoxes is what Hochschild loves pondering. He writes in the journalist/historian tradition (the journalist tag usually applied as a pejorative.) of Halberstam, Shirer, and Barbara Tuchman (we can add American as an adjective also I guess), but closest I believe to Tuchman who I believes he leans on heavily in this book. Like Tuchman he weaves a web of characters and well digested information that makes such an absorbing narrative of the grimmest of situations. He presents his characters whether a voice for or against the war (which he sees as a colossal mistake.) without judgment (unlike Shirer), and with fascination for their idiosyncrasies, heroism, and convictions. This is a humane history of a destructive and tragic epoch and alongside Peter Englund’s wonderful Beauty and the Sorrow, one the more essential books published recently on it. ...more

There is no question that Adam Hochschild is a great writer. To End All Wars is well organized, thoroughly researched and passionately told narrative, but I cannot recommend the book without some serious qualification:

1. This book is about Great Britain's role in the war. Events such as the assassination of archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the sinking of the Lusitania, the fall of Tsarist Russia, and the US deployment to France are given passing mention and little more. Additionally, he focuses aThere is no question that Adam Hochschild is a great writer. To End All Wars is well organized, thoroughly researched and passionately told narrative, but I cannot recommend the book without some serious qualification:

1. This book is about Great Britain's role in the war. Events such as the assassination of archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the sinking of the Lusitania, the fall of Tsarist Russia, and the US deployment to France are given passing mention and little more. Additionally, he focuses almost entirely on events in Belgium and France, giving almost no mention to campaigns in the Middle East, Asia, the Atlantic, or even the Eastern front.

2. This is not a military history of World War I in any sense. The Great War is merely a backdrop to Mr. Hochschild's analysis of some of WWI's primary personalities. He manages to explain strategies and tactics of many major engagements faced by the British during the war in Flanders, and that's really about it. While particularly adept at bringing the reader into the trench warfare experience with all its horrors and depredations, he doesn't even pretend to give a clear chronicle of every strategic shift during those years.

3. The personalities given the most attention in the book are not necessarily big decision makers. Hochschild focuses a lot of energy on minor players in the War. This isn't, by itself, a bad thing--Hugh Ambrose has made a career out of it with Band of Brothers and its follow ups. With few exceptions, however, Hochschild chooses to focus his attention on figures in the radical movements; particularly the women's suffrage, peace, and Socialist movements in Britain--movements that tended to overlap during the course of history.

4. Despite his thorough research into these personalities, the characters are remarkably archetypal. On one side of the coin are the war-mongers. They are inept, aristocratic, arrogant, and at every pass show nothing but contempt for the common man. On the other side of the coin, the ever-compassionate socialist radicals suing for peace.

5. The effect of the British radicals on the overall prosecution of the war is greatly exaggerated. Despite pages of adoring praise for their work (much of which shows an enviable clarity of conscience), World War I was ended by force of arms. The US's belated entry into the war (with men, weapons, and supplies), after all other combatants were so completely exhausted, demoralized and finally broke the back the Germans. While there is a strong argument that the radical anti-war movement was correct in its assessment that the cost of the war could not be justified, the impact of those radicals simply did not end World War I.

If taken narrowly as a history of radicalism and social change in Britain during the period of WWI, the To End All Wars is a good read. It's Hochschild's attempt attempt to expand the role and accomplishments of these radicals beyond their actual impact gives the book a clear feeling of being little more than leftist revisionism....more

Sam DienerI think you misread Hochschild's claims. He doesn't actually claim that the opposition ended the war (except in Russia, and to an extent, in Germany aI think you misread Hochschild's claims. He doesn't actually claim that the opposition ended the war (except in Russia, and to an extent, in Germany at the end of the war). He even says, in his conclusion, that he admires the British "conchies" expressly because they took their stand knowing that they were likely not to have any impact on immediate historical events at all....more
Jul 31, 2014 05:39AM

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.A book about WWI told from a British point of view. Fascinating to learn that some in England "wanted" a world war, thinking that it would take care of several of the issues that were going on at home - uprising in Ireland, socialism, and the suffragettes.

Notes from 1915 - massive loses for the Allies, and an ill-fated battle at Loos. This was a year of trench warfare with not a lot of movement, and a stalemate. Barbed wire had a huge impact on this type of land war. The allies were short on biA book about WWI told from a British point of view. Fascinating to learn that some in England "wanted" a world war, thinking that it would take care of several of the issues that were going on at home - uprising in Ireland, socialism, and the suffragettes.

Notes from 1915 - massive loses for the Allies, and an ill-fated battle at Loos. This was a year of trench warfare with not a lot of movement, and a stalemate. Barbed wire had a huge impact on this type of land war. The allies were short on binoculars, and the Germans became their suppliers, while the allies supplied the Germans rubber. Where the trenched soldiers were so close to the other side, there was a "tacit system of 'live and let live,'" where both sides would communicate when officers were approaching, and shoot overheard, instead of at each other; they'd not shoot at meal times; and if finding the opposition during night time patrols, both sides would turn around and go back.

Notes from 1916 - the major Battle of the Somme, which started July 1, 1916 - massive loses for the Allies, and not much of anything to gain. Conscientious objectives (CO's) were on the rise. The press and propaganda became a very important part of the war at this point.

Notes from 1917 - Deserters increased, major losses on all sides, no real headway in terms of what they were fighting for, German U-boats did major damage to merchant ships. The US declared war on Germany April 7th, 1917, but everyone already engaged in the war knew it would take a long time for the US to mobilize & send any troops. Russia pulled out of the war in November because of its own Bolshevik revolution.

Notes from 1918 - 2 major things contributed to the turning of the war towards the allies - the Americans were coming, and the Russian revolution greatly impacted the Germans, leading to many deserting. The Germans made a frantic push towards Paris trying to beat the impending arrival of the Americans, but couldn't make it. American reinforcements helped to push back the Germans, and the war was officially declared over on Nov. 11th, 1918.

Unfortunately, the Treaty of Versailles, which was signed on June 28, 1919 did more to "create more wars" than "to end all wars."

This was a fantastic book - so very readable and at the right level for what I was looking for....more

I admit it: I am a "Downton Abbey" addict. After watching season two, I became curious to know more about World War I and settled on this book, which looks at the war primarily from a British perspective. This is nonfiction at its very best. No dry military history, this is more a social history of the war, full of interesting, complicated people. The author is a storyteller par excellence and has captured the conflicting emotions of the time, from ardent, patriotic hawks to the heavily spied upI admit it: I am a "Downton Abbey" addict. After watching season two, I became curious to know more about World War I and settled on this book, which looks at the war primarily from a British perspective. This is nonfiction at its very best. No dry military history, this is more a social history of the war, full of interesting, complicated people. The author is a storyteller par excellence and has captured the conflicting emotions of the time, from ardent, patriotic hawks to the heavily spied upon, largely derided pacifists. There is a felt sympathy in this book for those pacifists, and really, as I read of relentless death tolls, I was surprised there weren't more of them. He does point out, though, that this was the first time nations really made use of propaganda to support their causes. Just as in "Downton Abbey", young men not in uniform were presented with white feathers as a symbol of cowardice. For patriotic, imperial-minded families, there was great pride in seeing their sons going off to what would surely be a quick victory. The tales of sorrow, though, lace the pages and build to an unstoppable current as the story unfolds. You read of Rudyard Kipling, a real jingoistic, imperial hawk, whose son went missing-in-action. The anguish of the parents at not knowing where their son's body was, or even, for a long time, if he had indeed been killed, is heart-breaking. I got totally wrapped up in this book with its huge cast of characters. It prompted me to order a BBC DVD series on the Great War, to find out more.Oh, and I found out that "Downton Abbey" is very historically accurate, so I can say my guilty pleasure is "educational".Here is a short book trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBeSp...

LisaAlthough it's about WWII, the BBC film series Foyle's War is just as addictive as Downton, only minus the high glamour. I'm not a big fan of militaryAlthough it's about WWII, the BBC film series Foyle's War is just as addictive as Downton, only minus the high glamour. I'm not a big fan of military stories or plots, but this one, as well as film series Danger UXB, are excellent!...more
Feb 16, 2013 02:59PM

CarenThanks for the recommendations! I have seen lots of patrons checking out Foyle's War, so it must be good. I'll have to try both series.
Feb 23, 2013 09:47PM

This is one of the best history books that I have ever read. It is, of course about World War I. But it is so much more than a series of plans and generals and battles. This book tells the story of the struggle through the both eyes of those who saw the war as a noble cause and those who saw it as utter madness to pit workers of the world against one another. This is what makes this book so unique. Included in it are both the British Commander-in-chief of the Western Front and his ardently pacifThis is one of the best history books that I have ever read. It is, of course about World War I. But it is so much more than a series of plans and generals and battles. This book tells the story of the struggle through the both eyes of those who saw the war as a noble cause and those who saw it as utter madness to pit workers of the world against one another. This is what makes this book so unique. Included in it are both the British Commander-in-chief of the Western Front and his ardently pacifist sister. Another excellent aspect is the way the events of the Boer War contributed to the military doctrine that proved so disastrous in this conflict. I was aware of the tremendous loss of life during The War to End All Wars but I really had no idea of just how blunderingly needless the slaughter of a whole generation of young men was. If you read history, don't miss this excellent book....more

Deale HuttonI am much more familiar with WWII, so, I think I should read this one. I read All Quiet on the Western Front and was traumatized. I could bare get thrI am much more familiar with WWII, so, I think I should read this one. I read All Quiet on the Western Front and was traumatized. I could bare get through it in Downton Abby! I will give it a try....more
Apr 01, 2014 03:21PM

Florence MilloIf it weren't for Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August, I would say this is the best history book ever. In fact, in many ways, it is better than The GIf it weren't for Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August, I would say this is the best history book ever. In fact, in many ways, it is better than The Guns of August because the people are so vividly portrayed and the family divisions so clearly drawn. I had no idea how close England/France came to losing the war. It took me almost a month to read because I simply had to put it down to absorb and think over what I had read....more
Apr 01, 2014 04:31PM

Unlike World War II and the Cold War, World War I was not about any principles an individual could support or reject. Closer to our time, if the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 or the Able Archer crisis of 1983 had degenerated into a full-scale nuclear war, it also would not have been about anything. That war would have been over in a matter of hours, slaughtered hundreds of millions, and transformed a large portion of the Earth's surface into a radioactive wasteland. In contrast, World War I tookUnlike World War II and the Cold War, World War I was not about any principles an individual could support or reject. Closer to our time, if the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 or the Able Archer crisis of 1983 had degenerated into a full-scale nuclear war, it also would not have been about anything. That war would have been over in a matter of hours, slaughtered hundreds of millions, and transformed a large portion of the Earth's surface into a radioactive wasteland. In contrast, World War I took over 4 years, slaughtered millions, and only transformed a narrow strip of Northern France and Belgium into a wasteland that is, thankfully, not radioactive but so filled with unexploded ordnance that French engineers still remove hundreds of tons of it each year. Unlike an exchange of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, it could be stopped. This book is about the individuals in Great Britain who spoke and acted against the war. Doing it meant going against both the public opinion and the government of the nation during the period in modern history when it came closest to fascism, but they did it anyway.

The anti-war activists were certainly a diverse bunch. At one end of the spectrum was the Fifth Marquess of Lansdowne, who circulated a paper in November 1916 arguing that the war would destroy civilization and calling for a return to the status quo ante bellum. In November 1917 he published his ideas in a letter to The Daily Telegraph saying that the war "will spell ruin for the civilised world, and an infinite addition to the load of human suffering which already weighs upon it," and calling for peace negotiations with Germany. At the other end was Keir Hardie, the Scottish socialist who became a miner at age 10, and later a union organizer and one of the founders of the Labour Party; he tried to stop the war by organizing a general strike in the belligerent countries. When another trade unionist saw the poster "Daddy, what did YOU do in the Great War?", he said that he would reply, "I tried to stop the bloody thing, my child." Field Marshal John French, Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force between August 1914 and December 1916, had a sister named Charlotte Despard née French, a social worker, Suffragist, vegetarian and pacifist who co-founded something called Women's Peace Crusade. One prolific intellectual who argued against the war was Bertrand Russell; he was imprisoned for his antiwar activism for half a year, though because he was an earl, his prison conditions were far better than ordinary. Another imprisoned antiwar activist was journalist E. D. Morel, hero of Hochschild's book about the Belgian Congo, who, in Russell's words, "collapsed completely, physically and mentally, largely as the result of insufficient food" during his imprisonment.

I must say that I have a great deal more sympathy for the peace activists profiled in this book who tried to stop World War I than for those mentioned in Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke, who tried to stop World War II, because World War II was a struggle of the imperfect good against the perfect evil, and in World War I none of the major belligerents were significantly more evil than the others - certainly not to a large enough degree to justify the bloodbath. ...more

To End All Wars focuses primarily on the British experience during World War I, a fine choice because few other nations left a complete enough written record to assemble the kind of story this book endeavors to tell. This is not another battlefield history of tactics and maneuver. Those things have been covered well enough in any number of military histories. This book covers the human and social sides of the conflict, and its impact on the British public, and does so from two disparate perspectTo End All Wars focuses primarily on the British experience during World War I, a fine choice because few other nations left a complete enough written record to assemble the kind of story this book endeavors to tell. This is not another battlefield history of tactics and maneuver. Those things have been covered well enough in any number of military histories. This book covers the human and social sides of the conflict, and its impact on the British public, and does so from two disparate perspectives. On one hand we get too look into the minds of the British leaders and supporters of the war, their thoughts, attitudes and opinions. On the other hand we also see the less-often reported side of the conflict, the dissenters who opposed the war and who often went to prison for their beliefs, among them the eminent Bertrand Russell.

There are a few surprises along the way, such as the ardent hawkishness of Rudyard Kipling mixed with the sorrow over the death of his son. We meet ardent suffragettes often at odds with the law who become firms supporters of the war effort at its outbreak. We meet Charlotte Despard, one of the most outspoken opponents of the war and vocal supporter of the IRA, whose brother was Sir John French, Britain's first commander in the field, and later the man sent to crush the rebellion in Ireland.

Covered in this book is the battle for the hearts and minds of the British public: the historically unprecedented propaganda machine intended to sway public opinion, and the war of surveillance and secret police conducted against the dissenters. We see the war for the hearts and minds of the soldiers too, including the paranoia that lead to such peculiar steps as Australian soldiers being billeted apart from British soldiers so the latter would not be "infected" by egalitarian ideas. We see the evolution of the attitudes of the war's supporters and foes, and of the public at large as the war progressed. Also covered is the less than equal treatment meted out to the empire's non-white subjects called upon to help prosecute the war.

All in all its a fine look at sides of the war that are rarely covered in any depth. The wiring is almost novel-like in pace and the quality of its storytelling. The human scope elevates it above the often dry statistics of conventional military histories. I highly recommend it....more

There is little new to tell about World War One. John Keegan, Hew Strachan and others have written comprehensive, well-researched histories of a conflict that resulted in 20 million casualties. Barbara Tuchman wrote vividly about the diplomatic failures that resulted in the headlong rush to war. For firsthand accounts of the trenches, there is nothing to compare with the memoirs of Siegfried Sassoon, Robert Graves, and Edmund Blunden.

But in this finely written account Adam Hochschild achieves sThere is little new to tell about World War One. John Keegan, Hew Strachan and others have written comprehensive, well-researched histories of a conflict that resulted in 20 million casualties. Barbara Tuchman wrote vividly about the diplomatic failures that resulted in the headlong rush to war. For firsthand accounts of the trenches, there is nothing to compare with the memoirs of Siegfried Sassoon, Robert Graves, and Edmund Blunden.

But in this finely written account Adam Hochschild achieves something new by contrasting key proponents of the British war machine with the pacifists who attempted to stop it. From the suffragette and worker movements came a few brave souls opposed to the purblind patriotism that swept the nation and encouraged millions of young men to march to their deaths. The object lesson of Keir Hardie, Bertrand Russell, the Pankhursts, and the mere 6000 conscientious objectors who refused to fight might be: brave individuals must stand firm in their convictions to change the world. But the parallel truth is more frightening: when a nation confronts a perceived threat to its existence, voices opposing it are muffled, propaganda overwhelms truth, and civil liberties go by the board--even in great democracies. We like to think we would have confronted the blindness of the politicians and generals whose arguments for persevering in a senseless war grew weaker and weaker with each slaughter, but the more likely truth is that we too would have condemned the opponents as treasonous cowards and marched with the rest toward the great debacle....more

An absolutely fascinating Anglo-centric history of WW I written from the perspective of those who opposed the war. Hochschild is a master raconteur as he connects the lives of the have and have nots and the left with the right. We meet Sir John French, the commander of the BEF, whose very own sister is a dedicated leftist and peace agitator. We get into the plight of the conscientious objectors (CO's) who were put in prison and went on hunger strikes. We learn of the British soldiers who were exAn absolutely fascinating Anglo-centric history of WW I written from the perspective of those who opposed the war. Hochschild is a master raconteur as he connects the lives of the have and have nots and the left with the right. We meet Sir John French, the commander of the BEF, whose very own sister is a dedicated leftist and peace agitator. We get into the plight of the conscientious objectors (CO's) who were put in prison and went on hunger strikes. We learn of the British soldiers who were executed for fleeing from battle-no such thing as shell shock to Field Marshall Haig. The propaganda machine cranks out the propaganda while the socialist presses are closed down. Just lots of info here. The most surprising revelation was a year into the war the British were buying optics from the Germans so they could better see German soldiers to kill them. The Germans wanted rubber in return for the optics. Just unbelievable stuff-sounds like Iran-gate almost. This book reminded me of a Howard Zinn history, a whole other perspective....more

I love Hochschild and I would be a lot more positive if I didn't expect so much from him. The end of King Leopold's Ghost makes you think he has a sequel in mind about ED Morel, Rodger Casement and the movement against WWI in Britain. That isn't this book at all. Morel is only dealt with briefly and in an almost dismissive fashion, which is puzzling since Hochschild seems to adore him so in KLG.

This is more of a history of Britain's involvement in WWI in general with some attention payed to resiI love Hochschild and I would be a lot more positive if I didn't expect so much from him. The end of King Leopold's Ghost makes you think he has a sequel in mind about ED Morel, Rodger Casement and the movement against WWI in Britain. That isn't this book at all. Morel is only dealt with briefly and in an almost dismissive fashion, which is puzzling since Hochschild seems to adore him so in KLG.

This is more of a history of Britain's involvement in WWI in general with some attention payed to resisters. I wanted the resisters alone to be the story, because I think we know the Somme and Verdun... I guess his other books do the same, paying as much attention to Leopold as Morel, or the slave trade as Clarkson and Sharp. Still, there are so many military history books, I just don't feel he needed to waste his time on that.

When he does give us resisters it can be incredibly moving, like with the story of the Bantam soldiers (who actually I guess weren't even resisting). Those are the people truly lost in history. He says at the start that he doesn't want to give us the obvious personalities we already know like the Bloomsbury group, but then the whole book is about the Pankhursts, Kipling, French, and Haig. Not exactly unknowns.

If you didn't know about the Rubber Genocide, Hochschild wrote the perfect book, and if you don't know about WWI this is probably also the perfect book. It just leaves someone else to write the definitive history of war resisters....more

This is not a book for the faint of heart. It's a chronicle of the bloodiest war of the 20th century, and encompasses the hollow reasons for starting the war, the hysteria of the working class in rushing to uniform, the gross incompetence of the generals in charge, the amazing and ridiculous bravery of the troops, and the idealism and courage of the anti-war movement. The book shows us how easily we're duped into war fever, and without drawing any obvious parallels allows us to see how very littThis is not a book for the faint of heart. It's a chronicle of the bloodiest war of the 20th century, and encompasses the hollow reasons for starting the war, the hysteria of the working class in rushing to uniform, the gross incompetence of the generals in charge, the amazing and ridiculous bravery of the troops, and the idealism and courage of the anti-war movement. The book shows us how easily we're duped into war fever, and without drawing any obvious parallels allows us to see how very little has changed from then to our war in Iraq, and all the wars that precede this history. Human beings love killing other human beings. Sad but true, the ants in the colony go marching along... And equally sad that the good the anti-war movement attempted didn't mitigate for the sheer horror of the militarists - working class, officer class, ruling class.

My initial reactions to this unbelievable history were in the line of "hmmm," or "that's interesting;" until those reactions quickly changed to "oh, my," then "oh my god," to "Jesus Christ!", to "God damn it!" In the course of reading I was startled, angry, and depressed, until upon finishing the book I finally felt a combination of sadness and awe.

Nothing good comes of war - never has, never will - don't be fooled again.

Please see the goodreads review written by Ivan Fiesig for an excellent take on "To End All Wars..."...more

In a word...terrific. I like this author and he doesn't disappoint with this book about WWI, the military leadership and the pacifists who attempted to sway public opinion. Told from the British perspective, it pulls no punches regarding the military leaders who still believed that the mounted cavalry was the ultimate weapon and who measured success by the number of their own troops killed in a battle. Although the pacifists and COs did not play much of a part in the overall scenario of war, theIn a word...terrific. I like this author and he doesn't disappoint with this book about WWI, the military leadership and the pacifists who attempted to sway public opinion. Told from the British perspective, it pulls no punches regarding the military leaders who still believed that the mounted cavalry was the ultimate weapon and who measured success by the number of their own troops killed in a battle. Although the pacifists and COs did not play much of a part in the overall scenario of war, they were a thorn in the side of the government and their stories are fascinating. The slaughter of the Great War still staggers the imagination and the author vividly describes what men will do in the name of honor. A particular quote from this book says it all (and I paraphrase)...."War is the only thing that causes men to willingly travel hundreds of miles to be killed". A chilling book....more

How weird is it that Britain's top general had a sister who was the war's loudest critic? Heartbreaking to read that militaristic old Rudyard Kipling was never again quite the same after he lost his son, never to be recovered, in this war. The Somme--too awful to comprehend, really. In one battle where the field was so muddy from all the rain, a soldier sank in mud and literally could not get out. He eventually sank to his suffocation, agonizingly slowly.

This book was utterly moving. It didn't fHow weird is it that Britain's top general had a sister who was the war's loudest critic? Heartbreaking to read that militaristic old Rudyard Kipling was never again quite the same after he lost his son, never to be recovered, in this war. The Somme--too awful to comprehend, really. In one battle where the field was so muddy from all the rain, a soldier sank in mud and literally could not get out. He eventually sank to his suffocation, agonizingly slowly.

This book was utterly moving. It didn't focus on battles, it focused on players--those in Britain who fought the war and those who opposed it. Second best book I've ever read on WWI (first being THE GREAT WAR AND MODERN MEMORY)....more

This is a great overview of the loyalty and dissenting voice in England over World War One. Many of the pages are devoted to the action on the front than the actual details of the protestors. This is why it did not give it an A. I think people who are familiar with the war will skim over this stuff and read the interesting tales of people who faithfully supported the war and those who did not. I still recommend it and the writing is first rate.

Immediately upon finishing this book, I gave it 4 stars; however, now that I think about my review, I'm upping it to 5. I'm not normally a "history reader" as such, preferring to get my impressions from fiction and memoirs, but as a member of the World War I group, I felt I needed some facts and timelines. Adam Hochschild did what all good teachers should do, he made his subject come alive.He did this in two ways. First, by combining the stories of the conscientious objectors and demonstrators aImmediately upon finishing this book, I gave it 4 stars; however, now that I think about my review, I'm upping it to 5. I'm not normally a "history reader" as such, preferring to get my impressions from fiction and memoirs, but as a member of the World War I group, I felt I needed some facts and timelines. Adam Hochschild did what all good teachers should do, he made his subject come alive.He did this in two ways. First, by combining the stories of the conscientious objectors and demonstrators against the war at home in England with those of the generals, politicians, and writers (men and women on both sides) who supported the war. He combined what was happening at home at the same time millions of men were being slaughtered in ill-advised trench warfare.

Secondly, Hochschild is a damn good writer. I didn't just read this book ---- I lived it. I was there for it all, could feel the despair of the men who knew the futility of what they were asked to do, the parents who lost their sons, the nations who lost so much for so little. The last chapter brought me to tears with the account not only of lives lost worldwide, but the new era of wars and bloodshed unleashed upon mankind.

It will take me a while to get over this book, but I am so glad I read it. Highly recommended to anyone needing an understanding of this stupid, stupid war....more

The title of this book is, at least to me, rather misleading.I picked this book up thinking that it would be an analysis of the contrast between conscientious objectors and militarist patriots over the span of the First World War.What I found in its place was a well-written, immersive in-depth narrative of the chronology of the First World War with only glancing, all too brief looks at those who opposed the war, almost as if they were an afterthought.

Disappointing in that regard, though if you aThe title of this book is, at least to me, rather misleading.I picked this book up thinking that it would be an analysis of the contrast between conscientious objectors and militarist patriots over the span of the First World War.What I found in its place was a well-written, immersive in-depth narrative of the chronology of the First World War with only glancing, all too brief looks at those who opposed the war, almost as if they were an afterthought.

Disappointing in that regard, though if you are looking for an immersive, understandable history of the First World War that doesn't bludgeon you with statistics & facts but sucks you into the chronology, you could do much worse than reading this book.

The rating is 3/5 because, although it is not what I expected or wanted in the book, it is still a well-written historical account....more

This is a hard book to criticize because things tend to shade into the entire idea of conscientious objection and world war I itself. Which is of course vaguely ironic as the objectors found it hard to criticize something so tied up in national well being and sense of place.

Still, this is almost exclusively a story of British socialist anti war objection, and honestly only a few of the higher class ones at that. Oh, and on top of all that a good half of the actual book is devoted to a general hThis is a hard book to criticize because things tend to shade into the entire idea of conscientious objection and world war I itself. Which is of course vaguely ironic as the objectors found it hard to criticize something so tied up in national well being and sense of place.

Still, this is almost exclusively a story of British socialist anti war objection, and honestly only a few of the higher class ones at that. Oh, and on top of all that a good half of the actual book is devoted to a general history of the war (or rather a general history of the disasters, though that is the same thing for the early parts).

It is, however engagingly written, well sourced, and covers an under reported area. Still, one can't help but wish for it to have a bit of breadth. ...more

Hochschild has written another fascinating, readable history. This is a history of WWI from A British point of view.

I visited a village church in England a couple of years ago. I was struck by the memorials listing the parish members who had died in the Great War and in WWII. While the list for WWII was less than 10, the Great War memorial had well over 30 names. I had not realized the devastation that WWI had caused a generation of Englishmen.

Hoschild does a wonderful job of making the historyHochschild has written another fascinating, readable history. This is a history of WWI from A British point of view.

I visited a village church in England a couple of years ago. I was struck by the memorials listing the parish members who had died in the Great War and in WWII. While the list for WWII was less than 10, the Great War memorial had well over 30 names. I had not realized the devastation that WWI had caused a generation of Englishmen.

Hoschild does a wonderful job of making the history personal following well known and important figures as well as some that history has over looked or forgotten.

Hochschild has helped me, an American, who was raised on US-centric history, to see a more nuanced picture of the war. He has written the clearest explanation of the Boer War that I have ever read. He has placed the Irish Easter Rebellion in context. I am also beginning to get a better picture of the rise of the fear of socialism and communism.

His portrayal of the anti-war movement in England was all new to me. And there were a lot of echoes of the U.S. during the Vietnam Nam War.

This is an excellent history of a little-explored subject: how society treats dissenters and pacifists during wartime. World War One is the fitting backdrop since war fever drove events and war resistance wrought greater changes than perhaps in any other war.

Long before 1914, everyone in Europe knew war was coming, and many worked hard to try to prevent it. Proponents of free trade tried to build public prosperity that would make war too expensive to contemplate. Feminists sought women's suffraThis is an excellent history of a little-explored subject: how society treats dissenters and pacifists during wartime. World War One is the fitting backdrop since war fever drove events and war resistance wrought greater changes than perhaps in any other war.

Long before 1914, everyone in Europe knew war was coming, and many worked hard to try to prevent it. Proponents of free trade tried to build public prosperity that would make war too expensive to contemplate. Feminists sought women's suffrage because they believed war was a male problem and that once women could vote, they would never elect politicians who would send nations to war. And socialists sought to unite the workers across national boundaries so that when the call to war came, the rulers wouldn't be able to get their soldiers to fight each other.

But all those efforts came to naught once Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated and the threats and ultimatums began to fly. Even though socialism had been on the rise, especially in Germany, socialists and even pacifists ran off to enlist once their nations came under threat of attack. And most of the suffragettes went over to support the war effort for the higher purpose of winning the right to vote. They sought to do this by proving themselves useful political allies to the powers that be, supporting them by word and deed during the war and promising to support them with their votes after the war—a strategy that worked when women got the vote in Britain in 1918. And far from condemning warfare once it started, women went out on street corners and handed out a white feather—the universal symbol of cowardice—to any man who was not in uniform. Even public intellectuals who had railed against war fever went over to support the war, telling pacifist holdouts like Bertrand Russell that resisting going to war once it started was resisting natural instinct. And the instinct that prevailed was the instinct to fight beside one's fellow countrymen, not the members of one's class as the socialists had always envisioned.

During the war, pacifists were shunned and derided, and many went to prison—though far fewer in Britain, which did not want to create martyrs. The fear of revolution was constantly on the minds of the rulers during the war, but democracies like Britain had the advantage in that antiwar sentiment could be expressed at the ballot box (at least by voting-eligible males) rather than in rioting in the streets. There were many strikes in Britain and other nations, but they never stopped the war effort. And while opposition to the war did lead to revolution in Tsarist Russia in 1917—resulting in what all the pacifists of Europe wanted: the withdrawal of a great power from the war—revolution did not spread to other countries with less repressive regimes. And even where revolution could have taken root, the suffering of the millions of dead and wounded soldiers had been so great that nobody wanted to lay down arms and tell the wounded that their sacrifice had been for nothing.

It was the brotherhood of war among soldiers fighting side-by-side, plus nationalist feeling among the public, that kept the war going. Soldiers were loyal to each other and disdained those who didn't fight, even though they were completely cynical about the outcome of the war. And while antiwar protests arose among the Allies as the war dragged on, when the German offensive of 1918 sent the Allies into retreat, antiwar sentiment in Allied nations evaporated. Dissent was a luxury only those who foresaw victory could afford.

Sadly, the victors learned nothing from the war, as Bertrand Russell noted when he saw that the victory celebrations in London in 1918 were nearly identical to those that had occurred upon Britain's going to war in 1914. War resisters did gain respect after the war, once the public realized the war's huge costs. Nevertheless, the public in Allied nations felt an overwhelming need to punish Germany for starting the war. That led to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles that hurt German national pride and stoked Germany's need for revenge. Allied leaders knew the treaty would lead to another war, but once again, they could do nothing about it, and World War II ensued 20 years later.

So in the end, we're left with many questions: Is there anything that can stand against what Chris Hedges calls "the plague of nationalism"? How can rationalism prevail when even those who oppose nationalist violence are so tribal themselves that their favorite song is "Which Side Are You On"? Can we all come together when those who point out that patriarchy leads to violence still insist that we adopt labels like "feminist" and ridicule those who don't? And are we humans still so tribal that we think first and foremost not in terms of right vs. wrong, cost vs. benefit, or sanity vs. insanity—but in terms of of us vs. them? Do all our thoughts still flow from that?

If so, then there's not much point in trying to end what has become for us in the USA a never-ending state of war. If (to quote Hedges again) war is a force that gives us meaning, then we'll never see the end of war until we evolve beyond our tribal roots and find a greater meaning than the one we find in excluding and destroying "the other." ...more

From the book: "While Woodrow Wilson is said to have called the struggled just ended the war to end all wars, Milner, grimly realistic, called the Versailles treaty "a Peace to end all Peace." And as we all know, Milner was far more right than Wilson in this case.

I give Adam Hochschild a standing ovation for the outstanding book about WW1 and some of its players. It is masterfully concise, yet with enough information to educate the reader.

My son was just studying WW1 in his high school historyFrom the book: "While Woodrow Wilson is said to have called the struggled just ended the war to end all wars, Milner, grimly realistic, called the Versailles treaty "a Peace to end all Peace." And as we all know, Milner was far more right than Wilson in this case.

I give Adam Hochschild a standing ovation for the outstanding book about WW1 and some of its players. It is masterfully concise, yet with enough information to educate the reader.

My son was just studying WW1 in his high school history class and it dawned on me how little I knew about this war. And in a remarkable coincidence, this was a Kindle daily deal, so I jumped on it. And learned the war was actually a turning point for warfare, technology, class struggle, war protests, and of course, gave rise to Nazi Germany. I only really knew the latter fact.

The way the author weaves together personal stories and political ones help make the reading of such a heavy topic easy. I can't recommend this book highly enough for anyone who would like to know more about this critical juncture of world history....more

Really good book that focuses on the moral questions around WWI. It is not a traditional history with a chronological description of battles, etc. It focuses on Britain, specifically British anti-war protestors as well as the political leaders and senior military officials executing the war, and what both were thinking and feeling. The author relies on diaries, private papers, etc. that were made public over the past few years. He also gives a good background of events/alliances that led to theReally good book that focuses on the moral questions around WWI. It is not a traditional history with a chronological description of battles, etc. It focuses on Britain, specifically British anti-war protestors as well as the political leaders and senior military officials executing the war, and what both were thinking and feeling. The author relies on diaries, private papers, etc. that were made public over the past few years. He also gives a good background of events/alliances that led to the war, pointing out how ludicrous it was that the war happened at all since all the powers were getting along fairly well at the time that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand set the fatal series of events in motion. This book is a good reminder of the absolute carnage that resulted, and how WWI really was the catalyst for a great deal of what happened later in the 20th century. It is not a war we think of that much, when compared to WWII, but it had a huge impact on the world that no one foresaw at the time. ...more

Is questioning, criticizing, resisting, or rebelling against your country during time of war an act of loyalty or treason? Does it take more bravery to climb from your trench and storm 'no man's land' knowing you are likely to be cut down by machine gun bullets or blown to bits by high explosives, or to refuse to fight under penalty of death as you're excoriated by your countrymen as a coward or traitor?

To which should we be loyal? To our nation or our world? To our flag or our fellow workers onIs questioning, criticizing, resisting, or rebelling against your country during time of war an act of loyalty or treason? Does it take more bravery to climb from your trench and storm 'no man's land' knowing you are likely to be cut down by machine gun bullets or blown to bits by high explosives, or to refuse to fight under penalty of death as you're excoriated by your countrymen as a coward or traitor?

To which should we be loyal? To our nation or our world? To our flag or our fellow workers on the other side of the border? In the view of Alice Wheeldon, one of the anti-war heroes in Adam Hochschild's "To End All Wars, A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918," the answer is the latter. As Wheeldon said from her prison cell, serving time for helping British men evade conscription, "The world is my country."

With that quote Hochschild ends his stirring story of the people who raised questions that resonate to this very day. This is a marvelous book, despite everything it isn't. It is not a comprehensive history of the First World War, although you are taken to the most important battlefields. Hochschild provides a brief overview of the six-week crisis -- one that has filled entire volumes -- that followed the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, a period of ultimatums upon ultimatums that led Europe to four years of existentially pointless slaughter, in the words of military historian John Keegan, whose work Hochschild cites.

It is not an academic study of the origins of leftist movements in England and Europe, the trade unionists, socialists, and suffragettes that comprise the dramatis personae of Hochschild's narrative.

It IS a human story seen through the eyes of a handful of individuals, history written like a novel, that takes the reader to many places, from the catastrophe on the Somme to the personal lives of war resisters on the home island, to the deliberations of Britain's military leaders to the writing of great dissenters like Bertrand Russell.

Unless you are a specialist of this era, many names will be new to you: socialists and anti-war activists like Keir Hardie and Charlotte Despard (whose younger brother was Field Marshall John French), Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters, whose differences over the war's legitimacy tragically wrecked the family's unity, the radical Albert Rochester, who questioned why his officers should have so many servants when he and his fellow fighting men needed more manpower in the trenches, and John Clark, a circus animal tamer who became an underground anti-war activist.

You will learn the amazing story of Emily Hobhouse, who exposed the British military's treatment of white civilians in concentration camps during the Boer War after the turn of the century. During the Great War, she was the ONLY English citizen to travel to Germany to attempt to reach a peace settlement. She returned to England with an unrealistic proposal that was rejected out of hand. A member of the anti-war fringe then, we look back on her today to see someone with rare sanity during an insane war.

Many loyalists show up in Hochschild's narrative, from imperialists like Rudyard Kipling (whose son was killed in the war) to propagandists like John Buchan, to British military commanders like Sir Douglas Haig, who wasted hundreds of thousands of his men's lives in suicidal assaults. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme, the British Army suffered 57,000 casualties, including 21,000 dead. That ghastly toll amounted to nearly half the British forces who fought that day. Hochschild takes you into the trenches on that fateful July morning in 1916, as the soldiers climbed over their parapets and walked almost shoulder to shoulder across a wide front into 'no man's land,' only to discover to their horror that the preceding five days' artillery bombardment had utterly failed to weaken the German defenses but instead created a treacherous moonscape of blast craters. Most of those killed were felled within the first hours of fighting; as you read you can see and hear the German machine guns relentlessly firing.

For four and a half months Haig ordered assaults until finally calling off the offensive. The British suffered 500,000 casualties on the Somme, including 125,000 deaths. Yet Haig would survive in his post to the end of the war. While Hochschild clearly indicts Haig for throwing away so many lives, he concedes it is not clear that a different general would have prosecuted the war significantly differently. The forces behind continuing through to victory overwhelmed the minority of Britons who opposed it. Thus, the madness that was the First World War. Even after the signing of the Armistice, fighting continued for another six hours, wiping out thousands more. Seldom in this war, writes Hochschild, did one side have a monopoly of folly.

The war's opponents are Hochschild's heroes. You will find yourself asking the same question as did the socialist Keir Hardie: why are Europe's workers killing each other by the millions? Why, after it became clear the war would not end quickly, weren't more men resisting service? Nationalism prevailed. Hoschschild brilliantly demonstrates how during times of national crisis people are wont to rally around flag and country, and paint dissenters as internal enemies.

But the resisters, despite no realistic chance of ending the war, fought on at great personal risk. About 6,000 conscientious objectors were jailed for refusing any military service by British authorities. War opponents were spied upon, their anti-war newspapers a constant target. Alice Wheeldon's family were victims of a show trial that sent them to prison on trumped up charges that they plotted to murder a high-ranking British official, one of the most shameful acts by a country that supposedly was fighting for freedom (of Belgium and France, not its colonial possessions).

As the war's toll mounted on all sides, its opponents grew more desperate, and the entrenched powers dug in even deeper with one notable exception: in Russia. The Tsar abdicated his throne in March 1917 as millions of Russian soldiers deserted and in October that year the Bolsheviks seized power.

Can anyone deny that the First World War was not only a mistake (aren't most wars?) but also an avoidable one, a war that simply did not have to be fought? Before the war, Europe was at its height. Had its leaders been able to see in 1914 four years into the future, would any have made the same decisions? Even France, which saw 1.3 million of its fighting men die and a large section of its country occupied? What about Britain, which was not tied to any continetal power by a mobilization agreement (like France was to Russia, or Germany to Austria-Hungary), yet plunged headlong into the abyss? The pain caused by this human catastrophe is what fuels Hochschild's narrative and brings his chosen heroes to life, making the questions they asked in 1914-1918 all the more relevant today in an era of permanent American war. However, I have a bone to pick with his conclusion that runs in the counter-historical.

What if Britain decided to stay out of the war and Germany won? Hochschild thinks it is reasonable to ask this question because Germany's actual defeat in 1918 did indeed lead to the rise of Nazism and another war in 1939 that saw Germany overrun France and most of Europe with even more disastrous consequences. On one level it certainly is reasonable. Maybe the greatest tragedy of the Great War was that after a fast victory proved impossible, the warring powers, so optimistic during their mobilization hysteria of 1914, continued to fight on, despite losing hundreds of thousands of men while gaining just hundreds of yards of ground. Could not civilized Europe have admitted its folly and have reached a negotiated peace? (Once America declared war on Germany in 1917, France and Britain had reason to hold the front line; the arrival of millions of U.S. troops in 1918 would swing the advantage to the Entente Powers).

"The war that prevented a German conquest of Europe in 1914 virtually guaranteed the one that would begin in 1939," Hochschild writes. But does history ever point in a straight, inevitable line? Hitler's rise was not inevitable, or at least should not have been, even after the punitive terms of the Versailles Treaty. Hitler's political career should have been over after his failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, which sent him to prison, a discredited member of Germany's relatively small right-wing lunatic fringe. Other factors unforeseen in 1919 led to the disintegration of the Weimar Republic and growing popularity of right-wing nationalism, including the Great Depression that knocked 6 million Germans out of work. History does not point in a straight line. But even if we grant Hochschild (and many other fine scholars) the argument that German defeat in 1918 and the peace treaty that followed led directly to annihilationist war in 1939, the counter-historical thesis that Britain should have stayed out of the First World War has another weakness: one cannot assume, based on the knowledge that was available and the decisions that had to made in the here-and-now, that men were capable of seeing so far ahead. Yes, even as Woodrow Wilson is said to have called it the war to end all wars, Britain's Alfred Milner called the Versailles Treaty "a Peace to end Peace." But while history is remembered backward, it is lived forward, it is lived as it happens. That is not to excuse the decisions and actions that ended the lives of at least 8.5 million soldiers and 12 million civilians, it is to understand that if men could have been so clairvoyant as to see another more catastrophic war draped in the swastika coming 20 years later, they might have seen in 1914 the unprecedented calamity that was unfolding before their very eyes.

But Hochschild's story is about those who DID see that calamity -- and devoted their lives to waking up their countrymen to see the same thing. Their success was not in stopping the war, because they did not. Their success is their legacy --- by providing a lesson for posterity -- to question our government's behavior, to stand up for what is moral, to dare to feel as did Alice Wheeldon that the 'world is my country.'

Hochschild was born in New York City. As a college student, he spent a summer working on an anti-government newspaper in South Africa and subsequently worked briefly as a civil rights worker in Mississippi in 1964. Both were politically pivotal experiences about which he would later write in his book Finding the Trapdoor. He later was part of the movement against the Vietnam War, and, after severaHochschild was born in New York City. As a college student, he spent a summer working on an anti-government newspaper in South Africa and subsequently worked briefly as a civil rights worker in Mississippi in 1964. Both were politically pivotal experiences about which he would later write in his book Finding the Trapdoor. He later was part of the movement against the Vietnam War, and, after several years as a daily newspaper reporter, worked as a writer and editor for the leftwing Ramparts magazine. In the mid-1970s, he was one of the co-founders of Mother Jones.

Hochschild's first book was a memoir, Half the Way Home: a Memoir of Father and Son (1986), in which he described the difficult relationship he had with his father. His later books include The Mirror at Midnight: a South African Journey (1990; new edition, 2007), The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin (1994; new edition, 2003), Finding the Trapdoor: Essays, Portraits, Travels (1997), which collects his personal essays and reportage, and King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa (1998; new edition, 2006), a history of the conquest and colonization of the Congo by Belgium's King Léopold II. His Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves, published in 2005, is about the antislavery movement in the British Empire.

Hochschild has also written for The New Yorker, Harper's Magazine, The New York Review of Books, The New York Times Magazine, and The Nation. He was also a commentator on National Public Radio's All Things Considered. Hochschild's books have been translated into twelve languages.

A frequent lecturer at Harvard's annual Nieman Narrative Journalism Conference and similar venues, Hochschild lives in San Francisco and teaches writing at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. He is married to sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild.

“Unlike, say, witch-burning, slavery, and apartheid, which were once taken for granted and are now officially outlawed, war is still with us.”
—
1 likes

“For several years now, Kipling had been sprinkling his prose and poetry with anti-German barbs. He believed this war would do “untold good” for his beloved British tommies, preparing them for the inevitable clash with Germany. The Boer War, said a character in a story he wrote at the time, was “a first-class dress-parade for Armageddon.”
—
0 likes